



LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 



DDDDli73fl732 



*^o< 



A°^ 






-ov^^ 










'o . » 




4:? ^ 



.4; 



0^ 






^^. 












*^ • i 



/>« 









I*" 






>. 






.i** 



^^^ .^ 






• ^.^"^ ^. 



PEOM THE CHHISTIAN TIMES. 

SPEECH OF DR. GOODWL\, 

1: '1 - \ 



2. 



IN REPLY TO 



DE. HAWKS, DE. MAHAN, 



AND OTHERS. 



I>elivered in. Convetition, Oct. 14, 1862. 



N E W - Y R K : 
John A. GaAV, Pkistf.r and Btkreotypkr, 16 and 18 Jacod ^t, 

1862. 



\.' 



S P E ]^] C H 



Mr. President : — It must be manifest to every 
member of this House that the wliole argument 
of the Reverend gentleman who has just taken 
his seat (Dr. Hawks), proceeds upon t\vo cardinal, 
and, I may say, monstrous assumj)tions — assump- 
tions without whic'li his entire rhetorical fabric 
must fall to the ground. The first assumption is, 
that the disruption of the Union is a fixed, per- 
manent, and admitted fact; that the Southern 
Confederacy is an independent nation in fact and 
of right, and so to be considered and acknowl- 
edged in all the doingsof this Convention. Hence 
he proposes so to modify the resolutions of the 
Committee, that we shall offer our prayers, not 
for " the restoration of the Union," but for " the 
restoration of national — i. e., of international— peace 
and harmony." The second assumption is, that 
the separation of the Southern Dioceses from this 
Church is legitimate, permanent, and irreversible ; 
that we must accommodate ourselves to it ; that 
the Southern Church exists by the side of us with 
rights in every respect equal to our own, rights 
which we are bound to recognize, unless we would 



place ourselves in a scliismatical position. Hence 
he proposes, not a rebuke to Soutbei'o Church- 
men for their rash and hasty separation, but " a 
concordat " for our future inter-communion. 
Now this is carrying loyalty a little fiirther than 
I, for one, am disposed to go. Not content with 
professing to be loyal to the Government of the 
IJnited States, it is equally loyal to the govern- 
ment of the so-called Confederate States. I trust 
there are few, if any, on the floor of this House, 
who are ready to adopt the Reverend gentle- 
man's two assumptions, or to shape their course 
and the course of this House in open and profess- 
ed accordance with them. I shall therefore dis- 
miss the gentleman's arguments and appeals with- 
out attempting any further refutation or reply. 

And here, Mr. President, I wish my position 
to be distinctly understood in relation to the 
Special Committee and their report. I say only 
what is well known to all the members of this 
House, when I say that that Committee was tak- 
en, and intentionally taken, almost, if not quite 
exclusively, from one side of the House ; seven of 
the nine members having already on the floor of this 
House declared themselves decidedly and strong- 
ly (q)posed to any discussion or action in relation 
to the subjects now under consideration. Yet I 
wish to say that I freely and cordially recognize 
the members of that Committee as most respect- 
able and honorable men — none more so in this 
House ; and I am fully ready to believe that they 
have endeavored to perform their duty fairly and 
impartially, and with a good conscience, in the 
siffht of God and man. I honor them for what 



they have done. I differ from them. I would 
have gone much farther. I would have had reso- 
lutions that should have expressed our views more 
distinctly, decidedly, strongly, than they have 
ventured to do. But I am perfectly ready, as I 
think every practical man shoukl be under such 
circumstances, to yield something of my own 
preferences to the earnest and decided views of 
others. I am still earnestly desirous that the res- 
olutions reported by the Committee should be 
amended before they are passed ; but if that may 
not be, then I am ready to vote for the resolu- 
tions as they are. 

It seems to be taken for granted by many gen- 
tlemen that the resolutions offered by the Lay 
Deputy from New-York (Judge Hoffman), are 
incomj)atible willi the resolutions of the Counnit- 
tee ; and that, if ado])ied at all, tliey must be adopt- 
ed as a substitute for the latter. But this is not 
so. They are offered, not as as a substitute, but 
as an amendment. In my apprehension, they 
may be adopted in connection with the resolu- 
tions of the Committee, without the slightest in- 
congruity or inconsistency. Tlie resolutions of the 
Committee take more the political and less the 
ecclesiastical view of the case, and the others take 
more the ecclesiastical and less the political view. 
For myself, Mr. President, I am clearly in favor 
of distinctly recognizing the case before us in its 
ecclesiastical aspect, and am therefore in Hxvor 
of the passage of Judge Hoffman's resolutions. 

Those resolutions lay down as their premises 
certain facts which no gentleman in the House 
wall presume to deny or doubt. It is indeed per- 
1* 



6 

sister.tly and emphatically urged that we have 
not legal, technical evidence of these facts. Bat 
neither is legal, technical evidence necessary. It 
raiglit be necessary if we were about to pronounce 
a judicial sentence, which we are not; but such 
evidence was never held necessary before the 
passage of a legislative enactment, or of a reso- 
lution expressing the judgment of a legislative 
body. The premises being admitted, the resolu- 
tions follow without the possibility of evasion. 
They are only far less stringent than those prem- 
ises would warrant. They pronounce no judi- 
cial sentence. They utter no anathema. They ful- 
minate no excommunication, as their opponents 
so constantly assume and so industriously rej^re- 
sent. Far from it. Indeed, the honorable and 
eloquent Lay Deputy from Massachusetts (Mr. 
Winthrop), in a speech which he pronounced be- 
fore he left the Convention, admitted as much ; 
though he endeavored, in a somewhat extraordi- 
nary style of argument, to turn this very charac- 
teristic of forbearance and moderation against 
the resolutions of the Deputy from New-York. 
It was, so far as I remember, the only point which 
he made in his whole speech against them. He 
facetiously described them as "a bull without 
horns." ISTow, if this was intended to throw rid- 
icule upon the resolutions or upon their mover, 
never was such an attempt more ill-timed or more 
misplaced. 

No gentleman on the floor of this House more 
thoroughly deserves to be respected for his abili- 
ty and learning, for his simplicity and earnestness, 
for his long-tried and hearty devotion to the 



Church, and for his Ligli-toned Christian charac- 
ter, than the Lay Deputy frona New-York. Words 
cannot express how mucli I honor liim from my 
very heart. And as for his resohitions themselves, 
one of my lay colleagues but gave utterance to a 
feeling which I am sure must have been shared 
by many, if not all of us, when, after hearing 
them, and the noble speech with which they were 
introduced, he declared that '* he breathed more 
freely, that he felt himself to be more of a man." 
If, on the other liand, the gentleman from Massa- 
chusetts meant his " bull without horns" not in 
the way of ridicule, but as a serious argument, 
then what I have to say, Mr. President, is, that 
this is a very singular and notable argument as 
coming from that side, wliich is so constantly in- 
sinuating our want of Christian charity, our dis- 
position to harsh and violent judgments, and 
charging us with fulminating anathemas and 
curses, and calling hard names : I say, it is a sin- 
gular argument, in the midst of all this, to urge 
against us an almost ridiculous degree of gentle- 
ness, forbearance, and moderation. 

Anotlier Lay Deputy from Xew-York (Mr. 
Ruggles), has objected to the first of his col- 
league's (Judge Hoffman's) resolutions, because 
it charges the sins of " rebellion and sedition," 
as well as schism — sins which the learned and 
honorable gentleman has shown at length to be 
of a political, and not of an ecclesiastical charac- 
ter; while he alleges that the facts from wliich 
his colleague has inferred these sins are of an ec- 
clesiastical, and not apolitical character. That is 
to say, he has undertaken elaborately to show that 



8 

his colleague has been guilty of a non-seqidtur ; 
not that his conclusion is false, but that it will 
not follow from his premises. Now the learned 
gentleman might have saved a fall half hour of 
his own time and ours, if he had but referred to 
the very first paragraph < f his colleague's pre- 
amble, where he will find expressly and plainly 
laid down certain indisputable facts, from which 
he will see that the charge of "sedition and re- 
bellion" will follow as a necessary conclusion. 
The learned gentleman was probably led to com- 
mit this oversight, from having observed the pre- 
vailing ecclesiastical tone and character of his 
colleague's paper. Such are its tone and charac- 
ter, and it is in perfect consonance with them, 
that " sedition and rebellion" are spoken of, for 
they are denominated sim. But whatever be the 
character of these resolutions, whether civil or 
ecclesiastical, if the premises are admitted, then, 
as I have said, the conclusions will inevitably fol- 
low ; and the premises are but statements of un- 
deniable and undoubted facts. I am therefore in 
favor of the passage of these resolutions, as being 
called for by the facts of the case, and as being 
not only dignified and earnest, but gentle and 
moderate, breathing a pure Christian spirit, and 
couched in kindly Christian language. 

The verbal amendments to one of the resolu- 
tions of the Committee, proposed by my lay col- 
league, are intended not to change its j^urport, 
but to give it a more straight-forward, positive, 
and, I may say, manly expression. If the resolu- 
tions are to pass at all, I see no reason against 
these amendments, and many reasons in their 



9 

favor ; and I understand they are approved, and 
would be readily accepted by the gentleman (Mr. 
Winhtrop) who drew the original resolutions. 
Tliey introduce no substantial change of sense ; 
no new charge, reproach, condemnation, or de- 
nunciation of our Southern brethren. For if it is 
true, as the resolutions assert, that they " will 
have iiillicted a grievous wrong, should they per- 
severe in striving to rend asunder," etc., it cer- 
tainly must be true, as the amendment would say, 
that they " are inflicting a grievous wrong in 
trying to rend asunder," etc. Only the amend- 
ment states simply and directly in the present 
tense, what the resolutions state timidly, hesitat- 
ingly, in a round about way, in the pmih jyost 
fu'ure. Nothing is gained f.)r our own Christian 
character or consciousness, or in the view of our 
Southern brethren — who will not fail to see our 
meaning, however adroitly concealed or timidly 
expressed — or before the world, by such temporiz- 
ing circumlocutions. The open, manly course is 
always the safest and best. It commands the re- 
spect of all parties. 

But, Mr. President, we have been told over 
and ov«r again in this debate, and it was insisted 
upon yesterday by the Reverend and learned gen- 
tleman from Xew-Jersey (Dr. Mahan), with great 
emphasis and plausibility of reasoning and rhet- 
oric, that if we pass these resolutions at all, 
amended or not amended, " we shall be meddling 
with iiyhat does not concern iisP To establish 
this point, I understood the gentleman to lay 
down the principle that the divinely appointed 
functions of the Church and of the Stale are per- 



10 

fcctly distinct and separate, that things political 
and things ecclesiastical never run into each other, 
or become mingled or intertwined toc:ether. 
These propositions may well be doubted. But the 
learned gentleman goes further, as I understand 
him. He admits that the Church and the State 
may stand in certain relations to each other, but 
he maintains that the relations must be such that 
whatever the Church may properly do toward 
the State, the State may properly do the same 
toward the Church ; so that, if, in view of the 
imminent dangers of the State, the Protestant 
Episcopal Church may, in the language of the 
proposed resolutions, "pledge to the "National 
Governmeut the earnest and devout prayers of us 
all that its efforts may be so guuled by wisdom 
and replenished with strength, that they may be 
ci'owned with speedy and complete success, to the 
glory of God and the restoration of our beloved 
Union," it would be equally proper for the Con- 
gress of the United States, in view of a threat- 
ened schism in the Church,- to pass a formal res- 
olution, " pledging to the Protestant Episcopal 
Church in these United States the earnest and 
devout prayers of us all, that its efforts may be 
so guided by wisdom and replenished with 
•strength, thai they may be crowned wi h speedy 
and complete success, to the glory of God and 
the restoration of the unity of our beloved Prot- 
estant Episcopal Church." The idea, of course, 
struck every one as ridiculous, and could not fail 
to provoke a general laugh ; and the Reverend gen- 
tleman had the satisfaction of feeling that he had 
triumphantly refuted his opponents by a reductio 



11 

ad ah&urdmn. But let ns examine the case again. 
Let us take the gentleman's princijde, that what- 
ever the Church may properly do toward the 
State, the State may properly do the same toward 
the Church, and let us proceed to apply it. Tlie 
Protestant Episcopal Cliurch has, by a legislative 
act, provided a prayer " for the President of the 
United States, and all others in authority ;" now 
would it be equally proper for the Congress of 
the United States, by a formal legislative enact- 
ment, to provide and set forth a prayer for " the 
Bishops and other clergy of the Protestant Epis- 
copal Church in the United States of America?" 

[Dr. Mahan — The gentleman has misunder- 
stood me ; my position was simply that the rela- 
tions of the Church and of the State to each 
other are reciprocal.] 

So I understood the gentleman ; but I also un- 
derstood him to hold that general proposition 
as hearing upon the case in hand j and I under- 
stood him to endeavor to show its bearing by 
the illustration I have referred to. It is his own 
illustration of his own prhiciple ; and therefore 
may be taken, I suppose, as showing how he un- 
derstands his own principle, and intends it should 
be applied. I need say no more to demonstrate 
that his principle being so understood and applied, 
his reductio ad ahsurdum rebounds upon his own 
head. And if it is not so understood and applied, 
it may be very true and very important, if 
he w^ill, and a great many other principles may 
be very true and important also ; but it is 
simply irrelevant, and proves just nothing at all 
in the present argument. I may admit, I do ad- 



12 

mit, as a general statement, that the proper func- 
tions of the Church and of the State are clifierent ; 
that tliere is a distinction between things ecclesi- 
astical and things political, and that the relations of 
the Church and State aie reciprocal ; and yet it 
will not follow from these propositions that the 
Church may not do anything towards the State 
which the State may not do also towards the 
Church ; and unless this follows, the gtntleman 
pr- ves nothing to our present purpose by his 
genei'al principles. The relations of father and 
son may be reciprocal, but it does not follow that 
whatever the lather may do towards the son, the 
son may do towards the father. Supposes the 
Church should be the " divinely appointed oignn'* 
to pray for the State, for kings, and for all that 
are in authority, is such prayer then to be reck- 
oned amonor things political or things ecclesiast'- 
cal? And is the State conveiseiy to be the 
" divinely appointed organ" to pray for the 
Church? 

It is evident that our Church has not followed 
the Reverend gentleman's tlieories. She has not 
contented herself with simply declaring in gene- 
ral that she receives and holds all that is taught 
in Holy Scripture ; but she has stated in di tinct, 
positive, and practical form, what she belit-ves to 
be taught in Holy Scripture. Neither does she 
content herself with merely prayng in general 
terms for rulers and magistrates; but she has 
ventured to pray specifically for the President 
of the United States, and for the Senate and 
House of Representatives of the United States 
in Congress assembled j thus acknowledging, be- 



15 

for-e God and man, her all^^giance to the Govern- 
ment (.ftlie United States, and, moreover, recog- 
nizing its peculiar political constitution. Holding 
herself also to be " the divinely appointed or- 
gan" to teach and admonish men of their duties 
to the State, sue has declared, in her Articles, 
*' tliat it is tlie duty of all men who are professors 
of the Gospel, to pay tespectful obedience to the 
civil authority regularly and legitimately consti- 
tuted ;" and, in her homilies, she lias rebuked 
and denounced rebellion in the most unqua iti(3d 
terms. Now, in setting forth such prayers, and 
in iuculcatuig such instructions, has our Church 
hQQW ineddlittg vjith 'what doe< not concern, he > f 
Has she been intruding upon the sphere of things 
political? If not, then neither will she be thus 
meddling or intruding by addi'ig other prayers 
specially adapted to the peculiar circumstancen of 
the times, and by reiterating, recntbrcing, and 
applying her general instructions, bhe has a 
ru/ht to do again what she has had a right to do 
once. The Church is not yeo elevated so I'ar inio 
the em[)yrean as to have no regard to times, and 
seasons, and circumst -nces. Rathei-, it is her 
duty, her Chiis ian duty, her ecclesiastical duty, 
to regard them, and to shape her course and 
action accordingly. It is for the Church to judge 
when she will offer special {)rayers, and when she 
will reitc' ate and apply tier special instructions. 
She has a right to pass these resolutions. 

But the Reverend gentleman objects to these 
resolutions as being a mere expressi n of opinion y 
and declares that the opinion of this House ex- 
pressed by their vote as a House, would have no 



14 

greater weight with him than the same opinion 
expressed by the same persons in the street. To 
this I answer that though it might have no great- 
er weight with him, it would have greater 
weight with men generally ; and in fact, may not 
this be one reason why its utterance here is so 
A'ehemently opposed ? The Reverend geutleraan 
goes on, with facetious expressions, to say that after 
all, it is not exactly an oimiio7\^ but a cotnpro'niise. 
Well, pray, what is there so laughable in a com- 
promise, especially when the compromise does 
not concern the opinion itself, but only the form, 
and style, and phraseology in which it shall be 
expressed ? As to the opinion itself, are we not 
continually reminded by gentlemen that all the 
members of this House are at heart intensely 
loyal? that in our sentiments acd opinions on 
the great subject before us we are all agreed ? 

But the Reverend gentleman insists that our 
Southern brethren have simply committed an error 
of ophvon. Be it so. And is an error of opinion 
then so small a matter ; so entirely blameless? 
Suppose a man thinks that whatever will pro- 
mote his happiness is right. This may be an 
error of opinion. Suppose next he thinks that 
drunkenness promotes his happiness. This, too, 
may be an error of opinion. But is he therefore 
blameless in his inebriation ? 

[Dr. Mahan — I spoke of an error in regard to 
a matter of fact. ^ 

This will not mend the case. Are not almo'-t 
all the articles of the Apostles' Creed statements 
oi facts? Is not a denial -of them heresy ? And 
is heresy to be excused as a mere mistake as to a 



15 

matter of fact? I suppose that all schismatics 
that ever existed might urge the same excuse. 
Bui. the Reverend gentleman intimates that the 
mistake as to the matter of fact in this case, may- 
turn out to be no mistake at all. Our Southern 
brethren, he says, suppose themselves to be inde- 
pendent, whereas it may turn out, in the provi- 
dence of God, that they are not independent, 
or it may turn out that they are. Now ^uch a 
view of the case overturns the first principles of 
morality. It makes success the criterion of right. 
It makes the moral character of present action de- 
pend upon a future contingent event which remains 
to be determined by the providence of God. It 
finds the source of sin and crime in the providence 
of God, and not in the heart, the will, the motives of 
man. We may not pronounce our Southern breth- 
ren rebels or schismatics, because they may yet 
achieve their independence ; and thus Jefferson 
Davis may be an embryo AVashington, ajid Le- 
onidas Polka germinant Bishop White. To this 
I reply, that the same may be said of all rebels, 
while their rebellion is in progress. They are 
all to be regarded as Washingtons, and Frank- 
lins, and Whites. According to this, there never 
was and never can be such a thing as rebellion, 
as a present existing fact. It is always a thing of 
the past, or a contingency of the future. And 
then what becomes of the Church's Homily on 
Rebellion ? Must a man be a prophet before he 
can say this is a rebellion? The Southern Con- 
federacy may, in the providence of God, be per- 
mitted to succeed, for aught I know ; it may even 
overrun and subdue the whole country ; I do 



16 

not profess to be a prophet, or to know what is 
laid up ill the dai-k womb of the future ; tlie just 
cause does not always triumph ; God sometimes 
uses wicked men as his instruments for chastising 
the comparatively good ; no men, no people, are 
good and righteous enough to claim exemption 
fro'ii the Divine chastisements. But though the 
Southern movement should be ever so successful, 
it will still be, in view of the moralist and of right 
reason, a most causeless and wicked rebellion, and 
so it will stand forever on the pages of human his- 
tory. With reference to mere political relations, 
and in the view of international law, success may 
suffice to justify a revolution. But at the bar of 
moral judgment it can be justitied only by the 
character of its proper causes, by the actnaf facts 
and circumstances of the case. It must be a 
case of necessity — a last report, when all other 
means of redress for grievous urongs, or of the 
maintenance of constitutional rights, have been 
tried in vain. Such was the case of our fathers 
in the American Revolution. They forebore, they 
waited, they argued the cause, they petitioned, 
they remonstrated, they supplicated, they expos- 
tulated, they were diiven to seU-defence, they 
were finally forced to separate and declaie their 
independence. How difterent the case of the 
South ! What wrong had they suffered at the 
hands of the Government? They petition! they 
supplicate! No, they spurned the thought. They 
began with rebellion, hoping that, in " the provi- 
dence of God" — alas for the b asj-hemy ! — it miirht 
be ultimately sanctioned as a revolu'ion. The 
atheist only commits a mistake as to a matter of 



n 

fact. He believes there is no God^ whereas it 
may turn out, in the course of Divine Providence, 
that there is. 

And as to the ecclesiastical movement of our 
fathers ; they waited eiglit long years, until the in- 
dependence of the country was achieved and ac- 
knowledged, before they moved in the organiza- 
tion of an independent Church. But our Sauth- 
ern brethren have waited scarcely a few months 
or days, but rather have thrown themselves with 
most indecent haste into the very van of the 
revolutionary movement. The Reverend gen- 
tleman admits that they have been hasty ; they 
hive been hasty — that is all. Yes, and that is 
enough ; that is the very head and front of their 
offence. They have done what, at all events, 
they had no right to do now, and what, per- 
chance, they might never have a right to do. If 
a son, impatient for the hoped-for inheritance, 
should kill his father that he might seize upon it, 
or should seize upon it directly and turn his fi- 
ther out of doors, would it be a sufficient apology 
to say that he had been merely a little in liaste? 

But the Reverend gentleman has argued at 
great length to sliow tliat our Southern brethren 
are not guilty o^ scJtism. I shall not fallow him 
in an examination of his authorities. I shall only 
say that his citations from Field and Pahnerhave 
very little bearing upon the present case. When 
Field speaks of " the connection and communion 
Avhich many particular Chnrehes have among 
themselves," he means, by particular Churches, 
national Churches ; not Dioceses with Dioceses, 
nor a knot of rebelhous Dioceses with the mother 
2* 



18 

Chiircb. And Palmer and Bingham, in their 
cautions, refer to solemn judicial se?itences, and 
not at all to such action as is now proposed in 
this House. 

The Reverend gentleman- from Xew-Jersey 
proceeds in reality upon the same assumption 
with his Reverend brother from New-York, or 
rather from Noith Carolina — viz., that the South- 
ern States and the Southern Dioceses are actucflh/ 
independent of the United States and of thi.s 
Church. I proceed upon precisely the opposite 
assumption, that those States are part and parcel 
of the United States, and those Dioceses are Dio- 
ceses of the Protestant Episcopal Church in the 
United States. Between these two assumptions 
we must take our choice ; and then the aroument 
lies in a nut-shell. For if, for example, the Dio- 
cese of Virginia is a Diocese of this Church, then 
this Church has a right to have her Bishop, and 
to enforce her canons there ;. and if so, any other 
Bishop there — any Bishop who renounces her ju- 
risdiction and rejects her authority — places liim- 
selt in a schismatical position. Either one paity 
or the other has a rigJit to the Diocese ; both 
cannot have ir together. 

As to the definition of schism, I beg to refer, 
first, to Eden's Theological Dictionary, revised 
by Archbishop Whately. I refer to it, not as in 
itself very high authority, but as giving the plain, 
unbiased, common-sense, and commonly received 
view of the case. He defines schism thus: 
'' Schism is, strictly S|:)eaking, the renouncing al- 
legiance to the ecclesiastical government under 
which one lives; whilst heresy is the adopting 



19 

opinions and practices contrary to its laws." But 
since Eden and Arclibishop Whately may be 
spurned as of little weight by the side of Field 
and l^almer, I will go at once to the very fount- 
ain of ecclesiastical authority, to which the Rev- 
erend Deputy from New-York (Dr. Ilawkio) orig- 
inally invited us — to St. Augustine. In his Letter 
against Cresconius, Lib. II., Cap. 3, he cites with 
approbation the toUowing definition : '• Hteresis 
est diversa sequentium secta, schisma vero eadem 
sequentium separatio." He afterwards proposes 
the following amendments : "Schisma est recens 
congregationis, ex aliqua sententiarum diversitate, 
dissensio (neque enini et schisma fieri potest nisi 
diversum aliquid sequantur qui faciunt) ; ha3resis 
autem schisma inveteratum." Under either of 
these definitions, are not the Southern Dioceses 
plainly in schism, whether schism be a separatio 
eadem sequentium^ or a recens congregationis dls- 
sensio f And as the very charitable manner in 
which St. Augustine treated even the Donatists 
has been held up to us for our imitation, I will 
add that the loving Saint does not hesitate, in 
different places, to caU them antichristos^ furi- 
osos^ immanes^ 7nendaces^ latrones^ as well as 
schismatics and heretics. But " all things with 
charity." T am not disposed to follow him in the 
use of such language in relation to our Southern 
brethren. 

It is considered one of the harshest things in 
the resolutions of the Lay Deputy from New- 
York (Judge Hoffman), that he charges those who 
have voluntarily separated themselves from the 
Church to which they owed obedience with the 



20 

sin of schism. Now, I wish to call the special at- 
tention of the House to the fact that we have it 
at last from the highest ecclesiastical authority on 
this floor, from the Clerical Deputy from New- 
Yoik (Dr. Hawks) ; have it as an unwilling, but 
enfoi'ced admission ; have it in plain and expi'ess 
terms, that, " unless, in separating from us, our 
Southern brethren have acted under the presmre 
of miperative necessity^ they are undoubtedly 
schismaiical." Does not this fully bear out Judge 
Hoflman's charge that those who h^YQ voluntarily 
thus separated are guilty of schism ? But we 
hear the suggestion reiterated on all sides, that 
they may have acted under duress. I reply, the 
mere suggestion is not enough ; it might always 
be made ; no proof whatever has been offered ; 
and in such a case, the burden of proof hes on 
that side. But I am willing to take the burden 
on my side. And, in the Brst place, I wish it to 
be distinctly observed and understood that nei- 
ther Judge Hoffman's resolutions, nor any gentle- 
men on til is floor that I have heard, lay it to the 
charge oK our Southern brethren, either as schis- 
matica\ or even blamable, that individual clergy- 
men h ave omitted the prayer for the President of 
the United States, or have used, instead, a prayer 
for the President of the Confederate States. 
These and similar things they might be compelled 
to do ; and we do not charge them with any fxult 
in so doing. And to assume that this is what we 
do charge, is certainly illogical, if not dishonest, 
argumentation. What the resolutions charge, 
and what we ad charge, is, the acts and proceed- 
inofs of certain Conventions. Now, I maintain 



21 

that those Conventions neither came together nor 
acted under duress. There is not the slightest 
evidence of it. It is, in the nature of tlie case, 
almost incredible, if not impossible. If, tliereibre, 
their action was scliismntical iniless compdled hy 
an mtperative necessity^ it clearly follows that all 
those who voluntarily joined in such acts and 
proceedings were guiily of schism. 

Even the Reverend gentleman from New-Jer- 
sey (Dr. Mahan^, admits that the course of our 
Southern brethren is dangerous., though he will 
not allow it to.be damnable — i. e., as he interprets 
it, condenniahle., or cidpaUe. And here, in pass- 
ing, Mr. President, I cannot reirain from express- 
ing my unfeigned surprise at the definitions which 
the learned Professor of Ecclesiastical History 
has given us of certain theological and ecclesiasti- 
cal te]-ms. As a clerical young gentleman from 
New-Jersey (the Rev. Mr. Doane) has already 
taken me to task for using a theological term, as 
he alleged, in a non-tlieoiogical sense, I am the 
more emboldened to purme the subject a little 
further. The learned Professor has told us that, 
in speaking cf " damnable schism," the word 
damnable is used, '-' not in any profime or com- 
mon sense, but in its proper signification of con- 
demnable or culpable?^ Now, I venture to say 
that the proper, technical, theological sense of the 
term — the sense uniformly attaclied to it in this 
connection in all ecclesiastical history — is, " that 
which exposes to, and, if persevered in, will pro- 
cure eternal damnation." In like manner, the 
learned Pi'ofessor tells us that anatJiema does not 
express a denunciation, nor even a judgment of 



22 

the Church ; that it means simply, " O God, we 
cannot judge; we commit all judgment unto 
thee." Whereas, the merest tyro in language or 
history must know that anathema means accursed^ 
an accursed thing, a thing devoted to destruction, 
from the Septuagint verpion of Joshua down to 
the Council of Trent. Anathema and accursed 
are used by councils and ecclesiastical writers as 
interchangeable terras. It not only expresses a 
denunciation, a judgment, a sentence of the 
Church, but it expresses the highest and most 
awful denunciation, judgment, and sentence which 
the Church or man can pronounce. It is the 
technical form of excommunication. But, says 
tlie learned Professor, the Church does not de- 
noimce ; she has no warrant for denu7iciation. 
Ajiathema is not analogous to denunciation; 
" deyiunciatioii!'^ is a heathen word, heathen in 
spirit and in meaning. This may be so ; but it 
must be a late discovery of the learned Professor, 
for the Church of England and our own Church 
had not discovered it; but in the 33d Article of 
Religion we still read, " That person which, by 
open denunciation of the Church, is rightly cut 
off from the unity of the Church, and excommu- 
nicated, ought to betaken of the whole multitude 
of the faithful as an heathen and publican." But 
what is it, asks the learned Professor, to be a 
heathen man and a publican ? It is, says he, to 
be simply not of our communion — to be a Pres- 
byterian — to be a Methodist. Mr. President, I 
protest against classing Presbyterians and Metho- 
dists with heathen and publicans. I stand here, 
and do not hesitate to declare pubUcly and em- 



23 

phaticallj on this floor, that I regard Presbyteri- 
ans and Metliodists as my brethren, my Christian 
brethren, and not as heathen men and publicans. 
And I know of no place where our Protestant 
Episcopal Church has ever denounced Presbyteri- 
ans and Methodists as heathen and publicans, has 
ever anathematized them or excommunicated 
them, or has even declared that they are schis- 
matics, or denominated them sects, or denied 
that they constitute branches of the Church of 
Christ. And with my notions of Christian char- 
ity, I feel at liberty to remain within the limits of 
the quiet and cautious reserve which the Church 
has exercised. 

[Dr. Mahan desired to explain. He had meant 
to use the terms Presbyterian and Methodist in 
no invidious sense.] 

But I contend, Mr. President, that the gentle- 
man has no more right to elevate the " heathen 
man and the publican" to the level of Presbyteri- 
ans and Methodists, than he has to degrade Pres- 
byterians and Methodists to the level of heathen 
men and publicans. To be a heathen man and a 
publican means something more than simply not 
to be of our particulcir visible communion. It 
means to be cut off from the Church catholic, 
from the body of Christ ; to be an accursed thing, 
a thing to be shunned by the whole company of 
the faithful. If I understand the drift of the Rev- 
erend gentleman's argumentation about schism 
and Church discipline, the upshot of it is, that it 
is very dangerous, as well as a most difficult, rare, 
and extraordinary thing, for the Church to de- 
nounce anybody j if done at all, it must be done 



24 

with many delays and precautions, against only a 
few at a time, and with ahiiost perfect unanimity; 
but Churchmen, individual Churchmen, may de- 
nounce to their heart's content, may fuhninate 
their exconununications ad lihltuin against whole 
multitudes, sects, schismatics, Presbyterians, 
Methodists, etc., etc. Only Southern Churchmen 
must be dealt with gently — must not even be re- 
buked for their faults ; for we must remember 
that we, too, have faults. Now, I have no great 
sympathy with that kind of one-sid d Christian 
charity which is so very meek, forbearing, forgiv- 
ing, and Christ-like towa-ds one set of sinners 
who happen to live in a certain latitude, only to 
pour out upon others the more fieely the vial of 
its vituperation. It may not be amiss to remem- 
ber that Presbyterians and Methodists may have 
something of the *' Saxon blood" — something of 
the " Old Adam" — in them, as well as our South- 
ern brethren. In the spirit of St. Augustine to- 
wards the Donatists, I would look upon South-ern 
brethren ; not as heathen men and publicans, but 
as my Christian brethren, erring, yet beloved ia 
Christ, whom I would most heartily welcome 
back to the old fold. Still, I look upon them in 
their present position as guilty of schism — not 
damnable schism — no, God forbid ! — nor yet whol- 
ly innocent either, but adpable^ censurable cer- 
tainly, sinfid as well as dangerous; and I would 
have the Church declare it so. 

According to the Reverend gentleman's argu- 
ment, as it would seem that no man could possi- 
bly commit the sin of schism unless he were obsti- 
nately bent upon committing it, knowuig it to be 



25 

schism, so it would seem that no inan can be 
dealt with for schism, unless he absolutely insists 
upon it, and wnll not take no for an answer. As 
I have listened to the course of this debate, and 
heard the beautiful precepts of the Sermon on the 
Mount so frequently urged upon us for our guid- 
ance in this case, it has seemed to me that w^e 
were getting ready to resolve ourselves into a 
Peace Society — all with special reference to the 
present war — in order to carry out the precept, 
" If a man smite thee on the one cheek, oifer also 
the other;" and that, perhaps, we might even 
come to establish a community of goods, in con- 
formity with the injunction, '' Give to every one 
that asketli of thee, and from him that would bor- 
row of thee turn not thou away.'' I trust I am' 
ready to receive and obey these, and similar pre- 
cepts, as they were intended to be received and 
obeyed ; but I do not suppose they are to be tak- 
en literally, and least of all are they to be applied 
to governmental action either in Church or State. 
And I do not see with what good reason they are 
cited in just this particular emergency, when we 
all know that we are not ready so to apply them 
in other and ordinary cases. And as to the slow 
and cautioussteps of proceeding, on which the Rev- 
erend gentleman so much insists, tliey belong, as 
I liave said, to the passing of a judicial sentence, 
which is not what we propose now to do. 

j^ut the gentleman bids us beware lest w^e ex- 
pose ourselves to " the fearful retcrt of that grand 
old saint Firmilianus," and ciit ourselves off in- 
stead of the others. There might indeed be good 
reason for great circumspection, if we were pro- 
3 



20 

posing to ciU cmyhody off. Gentlemen are con- 
stantly declaiming about excomniimication^ as if 
we were proposing to excommunicate our South- 
ern brethren, which I have not heard proposed 
here as yet, and which, if proposed, I should cer- 
tainly resist as strenuously as anybody. The 
gentleman also warns us that, if we pronounce 
our Southern brethren schismatical, the rest of 
the Church catholic might not agree with us, 
but, siding with our Southern brethren, might 
even pronounce us in schism. Our Mother 
Church of England, I think, was not troubled 
with such fears as this. In her 27th Canon, Avhich 
she entitles, " Scliismatics not to be admitted to 
the Communion," she describes as one class of 
schismatics, " any who huve spoken against or 
depraved his majesty's sovereign authority in 
matters ecclesiastical." Any who have spoken 
against the king's supremacy are here declared 
to be schismatics, and excluded, from the Com- 
munion. Such is the dictum of the Anglican 
Church. Has the rest of the Church catholic ap- 
proved of it? Or has the Church of England 
bten in schism ever since she uttered it ? No 
more does our own Church liitherto seem to have 
been troubled by similar fears; as witness her 
Canon which was applied in the case of Bishoj) 
Ives in 1853. That Canon provided for a much 
more summary process than the Reverend gentle- 
man holds to be allowable. Did our Church ask 
what the rest of Catholic Christendom would think 
of it ? She provided an extraordinary remedy for 
an extraordinary case — -just what we are called 
upon to do now. And has she been in schism 



27 

ever since ? But the nntliority of onr own Cliurch 
or of the Church of England may liave no great 
Aveiglit with those gentlemen who ho'd that some 
of the Canons of the Chinch of the first three 
centuries, and of our own Church for thirty years 
]>ast, are "grossly inconsistent with the iirst ])rin- 
ci|)les of the Gospel of Christ." I will therefore 
refer to a precedent which may be thought more 
to the purpose, as showing with what tardy re- 
luctance, with what Christian gentleness, forbear- 
ance, and caution, ecclesiastical discipline should 
be administered. I shall state the facts to the 
best of my recollection, and subject to correction 
if I err in any particular. In one of our Dioceses a 
few years since, a certain clergyman from another 
Diocese was sojourning. It was alleged that he 
associated in religious services too freely with 
ministers of other denominations. The Bishop 
of the Diocese immediately interpreted this as "a 
crime or misdemeanor," under Tit. II. Can. III. Sec. 
2 ; and without trying the effect of any previous 
admonition, forthwith, in a letter which certainly 
was not distinguished for Christian meekness and 
gentleness of expres^'ion, publicly denounced the 
said clergyman, and foi-bade him to exercise with- 
in the bounds of that Diocese that '* great and 
glorious gift which had been bestowed upon him 
by the Holy Ghost." In thus proceeding with- 
out taking the first, second, tliird, and fourth 
steps Avhich the Reverend gentleman has laid 
down as required by Christ in the administration 
of ecclesiastical discipline, I desire to know wheth- 
er that Bishop so grievously sinned that, ihlling 
under " the retort of that grand old Saint Firmili- 



28 

anus," he lived the rest of his life and died in 
schism. 

There is one point, Mr . President, to which I 
must jilkide in passing, and which I could wish 
I had time to discuss more thoroughly than I shall 
now be able to do ; a point on which several gen- 
tlemen have laid much stress, and which, if they 
are right, becomes a cardinal point in this debate ; 
I mean the duty of submission to a de facto gov- 
ernment. It is alleged tliat the Southern Confed- 
eracy is a de facto government, that it is among 
" the powers that be ;" its vast armies are refer- 
red to in proof that it is such a pov^er^ and the 
authority of the Apostle is invoked to show that 
Christians at the South are bound to yield it obe- 
dience. The argument is plausible ; but I reply 
that armies and fleets, mere brute /brce, do not 
con-titute what the Apostle means by the " pow- 
ers that be." By " the powers that be," he 
means governments; governments, as our Church 
has interpreted him, " regularly and legitimately 
constituted." The mere/ac^ oi force or 2yoioe7' is 
not enough to bind the co7iscience. From pru- 
dence or necessity, we may indeed yield to force 
anywhere, whether of rebels or of robbers ; but 
then we yield for icrath^ and not for conscience 
sake / we yield not because we ought^ but because 
we must. 

So long as the regularly constituted govern- 
ment remains, exercising or seeking to exercise 
its functions, a Christian man's allegiance is due 
to that government, and not to any de facto pow- 
er, though backed by any amount of force what- 
ever. I would like to know whether gentlemen 



29 

carry their notions of the duty of submitting to 
a de facto government so f'lr as to hold that any 
persons, within any of the Confederate States so- 
called, as in Western Virginia, or in Tennessee, 
or in North Carolina for example, who may enlist 
in the service of the United States, under the old 
flag and under the old Government which has 
never abdicated its functions, are guilty of a vio- 
lation of the Apostle's precept, guilty of" rebellion, 
guilty of one of the blackest crimes which man 
can commit. If gentlemen are not ready to go 
thus far, \ hope that, for consistency's sake, they 
will insist no more on the duty of submitting to 
de facto governments. 

But, Anally, the Reverend gentleman from 
New-Jersey objects against our being led to pass 
the resolutions before us, in view of the momen- 
tous character of the present emergency — alleging 
that we ought not to take such action in an im- 
portant case, unless we are ready to take similar 
action in regard to any and every trifling ques- 
tion ; the principle is the same for all. This rea- 
soning would be good, if it were admitted to be 
wrong in itself to take such action. This is all 
along quietly assumed by the other side, without 
the slightest proof, in all they have to say about 
yielding to outside pressure. But I maintain that 
w^e have a right to take such action, if we think 
best. And then it is folly to say that we ought 
not to take it in an important case, unless we do 
the same in trifling cases. As well might we say 
that the Mayor or Governor of iSTew-York ouglit 
not to call out the Militia to quell an insurrection 
or a furious mob, unless he applies the same 
3* 



30 

means to suppress the slightest disturbance that 
may take place in the street. And if it is urged, 
again, that we are an ecclesiastical body, and 
tiierefore have no right to act upon anything but 
ecclesiastical afiairs, I answer that we are con- 
stantly in the habit of" acting upon other than ec- 
clesiastical affairs, and that, too, in very trifling 
cases. Is it an ecclesiastical matter to accept an 
invitation to visit an Academy of Arts or a public 
charity ? Is it an ecclesiastical act to vote our 
thanks for hospitalities or other favors shown to 
us ? Yet such votes are solemnly passed by us, 
sitting as a council of the Church, and are for- 
mally entered in our Journal. They are required 
of us as matters of courtesy, it will be said. Yes ; 
and Christian courtesy is no more our duty, sit- 
ting as a solemn council of the Church, than 
Christian patriotism. 

And as for a precedent for the precise action 
we are now called upon to take, it is not true, as 
is so often assumed or alleged, that there is no 
precedent in all the past history of this Church. 
There is a precedent — pertinent, almost perfectly 
coincident, most interesting, and most authorita- 
tive ; and to this, Mr. President, I beg, in con- 
clusion, to call the attention of this IIousp. 

I refer to the Address to the President of the 
United States which was voted by the first 
General Convention of the Protestant Episcopal 
Church — the same Convention which in the fol- 
lowing October, at an adjourned meetinj?, and 
with fuller attendance, established the Constitu- 
tion, and ratified and set forth the Prayer-Book 
of the Protestant Episcopal Church in the United 



31 

StUcs.* Tims, the principle of expressly recog- 
i)izini^ our iiiterost in the civil govcrniiient in iiu- 
poil.'int emergencies was dei)osite(l in the very 
:ra(lle of our C'lmrch, und engrafted u]»ou its 
v^ery germ. 

To show how deliberately and seriously this 
Srst Council ol our Church treated the subject, I 
beg to read from their Journal : 

''Juhj 20, 1780.— Ordered : That the Rev. Dr. 
5mith, the I lev. Dr. Moore, and ]\Ir. Ogden be a 
['ommiitec to prepare an Address tp the Presi- 
dent of the United Slates. 

" Aug. 5. — ]Mr. T. Coxe was added to the above 
Committee. 

^''Aug. 0. — The Committee presented a draught; 
read ; ordered to lie on the table. Subscfpiently, 
read a second time ; afterwards read by para- 
graphs, and ordered to l)e engrossed for signing. 

''^ Aug. v. — Engrossed Address signed l)y the 

* Subsequently, Dr. Ilawkg eDdoavorcd to parry tbo forcb 
Df tliis precedorit, by saving tliat ibe General Couvt-ntion <if 
the Protestant Ep'ncopal Cliurch in tbe Uuitod States never 
made an address to President U'asbinglon ; tliat " the Proles 
tant Episcopal Cburch in tlie United States" did not llun ex- 
ist, as sucb. To Ibis, Dr. (joodwin replied tliat be bad already 
?taloil the bistorical tact.s in their projicr relations. Tlje same 
Convention wliicb voted tbe Address was, at an aojourned 
meetint^ and witb additional representatives, tbe Ilrst tJeneral 
Convention of tbo Protestant lilpiscopal Cburcb iu ibo United 
States of America. 

It is true that wbcn tbe Address wa.s voted, no delog<»trg 
were present from tbo New-England States; so that tbU 
" meddlin<? wiib politics" on the part of our Churcb is not due 
to the iuUueiico ot "Yankee puritauisin," or " Yankee iud- 
dcliiv," or "Yankee fanaticisim." 



32 

Convemion. ResoUed^ That tbe said Address, 
witli the answer that may be received thert-to, be 
printed in the Journals of the Adjourned Meeting 
of this Convention." 

Accordingly, in the Appendix to the Journal 
which contains the first Constitution of our 
< 'hurch, and immediately after its first Canons, 
this Address and the answer thereto may be 
found. 

In this Address, after alluding to some histor- 
ical facts in which Washington's liigh character 
had been exhibited, they go on to say : 

"To these considerations, inspirinor us with the 
most pleasmg expectations as private citizens, 
permit us to add that, as the representatives of a 
numerous and extended Church, we most thank- 
fully rejoice in the ehction of a civil ruler deserv- 
edly beloved and eminently distinguished among 
the friends of genuine religion, who has happily 
united a tender regard for other churches with 
an inviolable attachment to his own. 

" With unfeigned satisfaction, we congratulate 
you on the establishment of the new Constitution 
of government of the United States — the mild, 
yet efficient operations of which, we confidently 
trust, will remove every remaining apprehension 
of those with whose opinions it may not entirely 
coincide, and will confirm the hopes of its numer- 
ous friends. Nor do these expectations ajipear 
too sanguine, when the moderation, patriotism, 
and wisdom of the honorable members of the 
Federal Legislature are duly considered. From 
a body thus eminently qualified, harmoniously 
cooperating with the Executive authority in Con- 



33 

stitutional concert, we confidently hope for the 
restoration of order and of our ancient virtues, 
the extension of genuine religion, and the conse- 
quent advancement of our respectability abroad 
and of our substantial happiness at home." 

Thus much of the address ; and how great an 
importance Washington attached to the points 
thus presented, will appear from his answer, in 
which he says : 

" On this occasion it would ill become me to 
conceal the joy I have felt in perceiving the fra- 
ternal affection which appears to increase every 
day among the friends of genuine religion. It 
afibrds edifying prospects indeed, to see Christians 
of diiferent denominations dwell together in more 
charily, and conduct themselves, in respect to 
each other, with a more Christian-like spirit than 
ever they have done in any former age or in any 
other nation. 

*' I receive with the greatest satisfaction your 
congratulations on the establishment of the new 
constitution of government, because I believe its 
mild, yet efficient operations," etc. — going on to 
repeat almost word for word the remainder of the 
corresponding paragraph in the address. 

This address was signed by all the members 
present in the Convention ; among others, by 
William AVhite, Samuel Provoost, Benjamin 
Moore, Abraham Beach, Samuel Ogden, Francis 
Hopkinson, Samuel Powell, Thomas John Clag- 
gett, Robert Andrews, Robert Smith, Samuel 
Magaw, Vice-Provost of the University of Penn- 
sylvania, and William Smith, Provost of the Col- 
lege and Academy of Philadelphia. This last in- 



34 

stitution, by the way, was subsequently merged 
in the University of i?*ennsylvania ; so that, in "my 
present course, I am but "following in the foot- 
steps of my illustrious iDredecessors^'' 

Now, passing by the manner in which the Con- 
vention speaks of other Christian denominations, 
styling them, not "the sects," but ''Churches," 
'• other Churches," and the hearty commendation 
which Washington bestows upon their charitable 
dispositions thus exhibited, I would call attention, 
in the first place, to the fact that the address 
is offered by the Convention in its public ecclesi- 
astical capacity, as representing a numerous and 
extended Church. In the second place, the Con 
vention does not hesitate to express its interest 
in political matters, congratulating the Piesident 
up n ihe establishment of the new Constitution 
of Government of the United States. In the 
third place, they expressly recognize* the fact 
that this was a political matter in regard to Avhich 
differences of opinion existed. And, indeed, all 
who are acquainted with the history of the 
time, are aware that the Federal Constitution 
met with great and violent opposition; that 
it was with difficulty carried through several of 
the State Conventions, and with very small 
majorities; in short, that parties existed in re- 
gard to it, characterized by strongly antagonis- 
tic views, and no little animosity of feeling. Yet 
the Convention ventures openly and distinctly to 
express its opinion. But what is most remark- 
able is this — that the party originally opposed to 
the Federal Constitution was precisely the State 
Rights party — the very party whose principles, 
propagated to the present day, have furnished the 



35 

falcram on which rebellion has rested its lever in 
its attempt to overturn the fabric of government 
erected on that Constitution, in which our Church 
fathers so patriotically rc'joiced. 

ISTow, I ask, was this address o^ \\\<i\v?> meddling 
lulth politics — meddling icith what did not concern 
them f If it was, then let it no more be said that 
our Church has never meddled with politics. If 
it was not, then let it no more be said that the 
action now proposed is meddling with politics. 
The present seems to be just tlie time, and per- 
haps the first time since that address was made to 
Washington, when our Church is called upon open- 
ly and solemnly to reaffirm its original position. 
If the lathers and founders of our Protestant 
Episcopal Church expressed their satisfaction at 
the establishment of the Constitution, surely we 
may express our sympathy with the efforts made 
by the Government for its defence and preserva- 
tion. If they spoke joyously and thankfully when 
ournationalexislencebegan,we may speak sorrow- 
fully and prayerfully when that national existence 
is in imminent peril. I invoke the spirit of our 
early fathers. If they could be present now, and 
make theirvoicesheard again in these deliberations 
Qf ours, I am confident they would visit with stern 
and withering rebuke those who oppose the ex- 
pression of any patriotic sentiments, the utter- 
ance of any sympathy with our Constitutional 
Government, with our struggling and bleeding 
country. Were they here, I have no doubt they 
would vote, every man of them, for resolutions 
incomparably clearer and stronger than any 
which Ave have before us. Let us not disgrace 
our ancestry. 



54 ¥1 







•^o^ 




■^0^ 







5^>. 














,* ..v.. <-c 









^ - • . o - .V 



